033-NLR-NLR-V-58-FERNANDO-Appellant-and-JOSSIE-et-al.-Respondents.pdf
1956Present : Sinnetamby, J. and L. W. de Silva, A.J.
FERNANDO, Appellant, and JOSSIE cl al., RespondentsS. C. 302—D. C. Balapitiya, 398JL
Construction of Deeds—Paramount importance of the words used—Intention of partiesnot material.
In construing the terms of a deed, the question is not what the parties mayhavo intended, but ivhat is the moaning of the words which they used.
PPEAL from a judgment of the District Court, Balapitiya.
Sir Lalila Bdjapakse, Q.G., with V'. C. Gutialilaka, for the plaintiff-appellant.
S. IV. Jayrt-suriya, for the defendants-respondents.
Cur. adv. vult.
October 4, 1956. L. W. de Silva, A.J.—
Tho Plaintiff-Appellant instituted this action in 1952 for a declarationof title to a boutique marked No. 6 and the soil covered by it as depictedin the Plan No. 2,620 marked X and mado for the purposes of this action.Tho plan shows a horizontal lino of 5 boutiques. The disputed boutiqueNo. 6 adjoins boutique No. 5 on its southern side. Tho appellant, whobecame the owner in 1942, conveyed on the deed ID 1 of 1948 the boutiqueNo. 5 with the soil covered by it to the first; defendant-respondent whois tho wife of tho second defendant-respondent.
The deed gives the boundaries for the entire JancTand is in the followingterms winch are entirely free from ambiguity :—
The boutique room bearing No. 5 with the undivided soil coveredthereby out of the five boutique rooms bearing Xos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and5 built abutting tho high road on the Idnd called one third portion ofUrugastnanhandiya Manana Kebclla bearing lot No. 12 ” etc.
The respondents disputed tho appellant’s title to the boutique No. 6.and claimed it as a part of the boutique No. 5 on the allegation thatNos. 5 and 6 were one building. They thus contended that the deedID 1 did not exclude the sale of No. 6, the existen'ce of which as a separate■entity was denied by them.
Tho learned District Judge found as a matter of fact that the boutiqueNo. 6 existed immediately behind No. 5. With that finding we are inentire agreement. But he dismissed tho appellant’s case and declaredthe first respondent the owner of the boutique No. 6 and allottedcompensation to tho appellant. The reason for the learned trial-Judge’s finding is stated in his judgment as follows :—
t: The mention of all tho boutique rooms with the boundaries ofthe whole land and the transference of an undivided soil indicate thatthe bare land and buildings behind were considered as part and parcelof all the rooms. With this understanding between the plaintiff andtho defendants, the soil that covered room No. 5 and all that■appertained to it was transferred by ID 1. ”
This interpretation of the deed of transfer by the appellant in the nameof the first rcspondczit is clearly wrong. According to the plain meaningof the words used, tho transfer was of the boutique room No. 5 withthe soil covered thercbj- Neither the use of the word “ undivided ”nor the recital of boundaries for the whole land could in any way enlargethe specified corpus conveyed. In Maharaja Manindra Chandra_Yandi v. liaja Durga Prash ad Singh 1, Lord Pavmoor said :—
In construing the terms of a deed, tho question is not what theparties may have intended, but what is the meaning of the words whichthey used. ”
We have had no difficulty in coming to the same conclusion. We there-fore allow the appeal with costs both here and in the Court below. Insetting aside the judgment and decree of the Distinct Court, we direct adecree to be entered in favour of the plaintiff-appellant in terms of theprayer in the plaint with damages at the agreed rate of Bs. 10 per monthfrom 12th October 1951.
SlN'KETAMBV, J.1 agl'CC.
Appeal allowed.
1 .-I. I. li. {1917) Privy Council 23.